... Since you obviously didn't read the preceding posts let me explain that I was trying to show that ACR/LR does not make use of the lens distortion metadata that Olympus and Panasonic provides in their respective files...

I do read posts before replying.

What you were showing may or may not mean what you were trying to show. The only way we could see if it uses the lens distortion metadata is if you would post an image with obvious distortion problems (say barrel) and next to it the same image with that distortion corrected.

The other complication with lens distortion is whether or not it is corrected in camera on raw files. At least wiith panasonic or olympus lenses, I suspect it often is, leaving nothing for ACR or DXO to work on.

Correction: this is wrong, it is only the JPEGs that are corrected in camera. Using an OM-D with an Oympus 12mm f2 lens, Lightroom seems to fix lens distortion automatically but require that the Chromatic Aberration box be ticked and a little work be done with the defringe control to handle color fringes. Photozone.de says this lens has serious barrel distortion: "The "untouched RAW" results, showing the original capability of the lens, are much worse with a barrel distortion as extreme as ~5.4% which is rather disappointing for a prime lens.". The attached files show the presumably distortion-corrected file and crops to show uncorrected and corrected colors.

I would be interested in DXO if I thought it would do a significantly better job significantly quicker.

My point was that from the attached examples it is impossible to see (visually, in the image itself) if the LR applied distortion correction or not. All we are able to see is the presence of uncorrected CA. My second arrow pointed out the Color panel, where you are supposed to check "Remove Chromatic Aberration."

Thanks for the clarification. I agree and it would be interesting to compare the image after being fully processed in each program.

... Using an OM-D with an Oympus 12mm f2 lens, Lightroom seems to fix lens distortion automatically but require that the Chromatic Aberration box be ticked and a little work be done with the defringe control to handle color fringes...

DXO and the Nikon software do a far better job of correcting distortion than the adobe software does--they waste less of the image as well. Note that this might vary per lens, I don't know. Download the trials and try for yourself. Unsure on ACR vs DPP (canon) haven't tested that.

I rarely use distortion correction though, and lightroom / acr has an easier time of correcting highlights.

DXO 8 does a good job, C1 7 does good job, acr7 does too, so does RT. Not sure if I like c1 or dxo8 enough to buy them, i'm evaluating the trials. C1 7 is impressive..

I've attached two screen shots, one of Adobe Camera Raw with the "Enable Lens Profile Corrections" box checked, the "Setup" box is checked to "Auto".

The other screen shot is of DxO version 8, which under "Optical Correction" the "Chromatic aberrations" is checked and the option is set to "Auto".

The DxO screen shot shows how the program cleaned up the file.The ACR screen shot shows that no matter that Olympus and Panasonic provides distortion information (metadata) with each file, Adobe doesn't seem to process the information.

DxO processes the information with just a checkmark, I leave that option always checked so there's no effort on my part. I've yet to have to correct DxO's process decisions with regards to the "Optical Corrections" panel.

ACR/LR (as of ACR 7.2) does not have a matching profile for an Olympus/Panasonic camera-lens combination. The metadata may be there and ACR may be able to read it, but there is no correction profile available. See screenshot.

Adobe make a free application to make your own correction profile (Lens Profile Creator) and search the online database of profiles:

ACR/LR does not have a matching profile for an Olympus/Panasonic camera-lens combination. The metadata may be there and ACR may be able to read it, but there is no correction profile available. See screenshot...

It doesn't seem you read the previous discussion, specifically from posts #75 to #83, i.e., you seem to be repeating what was already discussed and resolved.

It doesn't seem you read the previous discussion, specifically from posts #75 to #83, i.e., you seem to be repeating what was already discussed and resolved.

I read them several times. I tried to elaborate on the somewhat confused and incomplete responses. The profiles are either available or they are not. You can make your own to supplement what Adobe does not create for you - it takes effort, but if you want to make a meaningful comparison, you can actually go through the exercise of printing the targets and imaging them and using the Adobe software to build your own profiles. Having done this for the 5D + Canon 15mm full frame fisheye, I thought I'd share the information. When you pointed out with your "Of course" comment with red arrows on the screen shot of the lens correction menu, you cropped out the most important part of the screen shot - no profile was available. You can make one available if it exists, or more importantly, if you create it and make it available - that's the reason for the links I included for the OMD user who may not be aware of these resources. I apologize for trying to help the OMD user get the most out of ACR, which is lacking for him at this time.

Since none of us have access to the OMD image used in the example, I can only draw from my own images. DXO and ACR have correction profiles for an obviously distorted combination of a 5D2 (or 5D) and Canon 15mm full frame fisheye. In the most recent incarnation of ACR (7.2) and DXO (v8 ) both are corrected automatically with the manufacturer-supplied profiles based, presumably, on the metadata contained in the file - that is, I do not need to configure anything manually to get the correction applied (in ACR I have to tick the "Enable Corrections" box - in DXO this option is on by default). Both give the user control over tweaking the geometric correction, and both give the user the ability to tweak lateral chromatic aberration and purple fringing. Both give the user the ability to control the crop around the corrected image (ie, addressing the comment above about "wasting" less of the corrected image). Only DXO gives the user the ability to recover anamorphic distortions that may occur under certain lens-camera combinations at the edges of the image.

Since the recent posts seem to indicate that this kind of comparison would be interesting, especially because the point of the discussion seemed to be the ability of both applications to utilize metadata for distortion and lens correction, I hope this additional information is helpful to someone.

I think both you and I (and other posters) are trying to help, each in its own way, so no issue with that. The rest is probably just a miscommunication or misunderstanding.

The gist of what I was trying to say, and Ken seemed to support, is the following: the fact that no profile is available in the drop-down menu does not mean that actually no profile is available. It means that the profile (for geometric distortion) is "baked" into the file, therefore it would be redundant to have it in the drop-down menu. It also means there is no need to make your own profile, unless you think you can do it better than Olympus or Panasonic can.